Mickerson v. American Brokers Conduit et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Relief. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 5/3/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 5/3/17)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

GWEN D. MICKERSON,
Plaintiff,

v.
AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT,
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE
INVESTMENTS II, INC.
CITIBANK, N.A., as Trustee/or Securitized
Trust Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II
Trust 2007-AR7 Trust,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM and
DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE,

Civil Action No. TDC-17-1106

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On March 3, 2017, self-represented

Plaintiff Gwen D. Mickerson

filed the above-

captioned lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, along with an
Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Declaratory Relief
(the "Application").

Defendants Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc. ("SAMI"),

Citibank, N.A., as Trustee for Securitized Trust Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust
2007-AR7 Trust ("Citibank"), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") removed the case to this Court on April 21, 2017. At the
time of removal, the Circuit Court had not yet ruled on the Application, and it is now pending
before this Court. For the reasons set forth below, the Application is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
Mickerson, a resident of Maryland, is the owner of real property located in Upper
Marlboro, Maryland (the "Property").

On July 13, 2007, Mickerson

secured a $560,000

mortgage loan for the property by signing a Promissory Note in favor of American Brokers
Conduit (the "Mortgage").
County.

In 2009, two Notices of Default were filed in in Prince George's

In 2013, the Mortgage was assigned to Citibank, N.A. as trustee for the Structured

Access Mortgage Investments II Trust 2007-AR7 (the "Trust"). In October 2016, two Notices of
Sale were filed with Prince George's County, reflecting Defendants' intent to foreclose on the
property.
The Complaint alleges generally that the Defendants engaged in a series of fraudulent
transactions related to the mortgage loan. According to Mickerson, because the Mortgage was
securitized, no interest in the Property was ever transferred, so Defendants cannot prove that they
possess any valid interest in the Property. The Complaint alleges lack of standing to foreclose,
wrongful foreclosure,

fraud in the concealment,

fraud in the inducement,

unconscionable

contract, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and slander of title. Mickerson seeks to
quiet title on the property, enjoin Defendants from foreclosing, obtain a declaratory judgment
that Defendants lack any interest in the Property that would permit them to foreclose, and
recover wrongfully collected fees. She seeks damages between $100,000 and $2,000,000.
DISCUSSION
The Application asserts that Defendants have initiated foreclosure proceedings and that
Mickerson's home will be sold. According to Mickerson, the terms of the mortgage loan were
unclear, inconsistent, and in violation of law. She claims that the loan was underwritten without
proper due diligence, and that American Brokers Conduit sold her "a loan product that it knew or

2

should have known would never be able to be fully paid back."

Appl. at 4, ECF NO.4.

She

further claims that "because of the securitization process, Defendants and their predecessors in
interest failed to properly assign Plaintiffs

Note and Deed of Trust." Id. at 6.

She seeks a

temporary restraining order and injunction preventing Defendants from selling the Property.
Although the Application has been pending since March 3, 2017, and although Defendants were
served on March 22, 2017, Defendants have not filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the
Application.
To the extent Mickerson is asking the Court to halt pending foreclosure proceedings in
state court, the Court lacks the power to provide the reliefthat Mickerson seeks. Under the AntiInjunction Act ("AlA"), this Court may not grant "an injunction to stay the proceedings in a
State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its
jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments."

28 U.S.C.

S 2283

(2012); see also Tucker

v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 635, 641 (D. Md. 2015); Williams v. Cohn,
No. PX-16-2886, 2016 WL 4415058, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 19, 2016).

Consequently, the Court

cannot stay or enjoin foreclosure proceedings involving the Property. Likewise, the AlA bars a
declaratory judgment that has the same effect as an injunction.

See Tucker, 83 F. Supp. 3d at

641.
Even if the AlA did not bar the Court from enjoining foreclosure of the Property,
Mickerson has failed to establish grounds for a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction.

Temporary

restraining

orders and preliminary

injunctions

are "extraordinary

remedies involving the exercise of very far-reaching power to be granted only sparingly and in
limited circumstances."

MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001)

(quoting Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 816 (4th Cir. 1991)). A

3

party seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary

injunction must show (l) a

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of the equities tips in the moving party's favor; and
(4) preliminary injunctive relief is in the public interest.

Winter v. Nat. Res. De! Council, Inc.,

555 U.S. 7,20 (2008).
In this case, Mickerson has not demonstrated that she will succeed on the merits of her
claim that Defendants lack an enforceable interest in her home such that a preliminary injunction
on the sale of her home following foreclosure proceedings would be warranted.

Mickerson's

claim centers on the argument that because of the securitization of her loan, Defendants cannot
demonstrate an interest in the Property.

However, "[i]t is well established, in this Court and

others, that 'as a matter of law, securitization alone does not render a note or deed of trust
unenforceable and does not alter a borrower's obligation to pay back his or her loan.'''

Danso v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. PX-16-1396, 2016 WL 4437653, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 23,2016)
(quoting Howes v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., No. CV ELH-14-2814, 2015 WL 5836924, at *26
(D. Md. Sept. 30, 2015)). Thus, even if Mickerson is correct that the loan was securitized, that
does not lead to the conclusion that she is likely to be able to show that the Defendants lack any
interest in the Property.

Likewise, the claim that Defendants knew or should have known she

could not afford the Mortgage is not a basis to enjoin a foreclosure sale of the Property.

4

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing

reasons,

the Application

for a Temporary

Restraining

Preliminary Injunction, and Injunction, ECF No.4, is DENIED.

Date: May 3, 2017

'~sx~
THEODORE
D.6:r1J~
United States District Judge

5

Order,